Forum:Signatures
Currently the only place our "no signature templates" policy can be found is on Vimescarrot's page. I think it would be a good idea to create a page (perhaps FunOrb_Wiki:Signatures?) to explain this and give further guidelines on acceptable signatures. I would also like to be able to create a message that will appear if someone attempts to create a signature template, directing them to our policy page, but I don't know if this is possible. I am making this page to see what other users' opinions on this are, and so we have a place to discuss what restrictions we think should be made on signatures. Quartic ~ insanity is a virtue | Talk 19:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC) :Whoops, I'd forgotten Vimes had changed his user page... Quartic ~ insanity is a virtue | Talk 19:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC) Templates Used In Signatures Hi, I was wondering about something in our signature policy, and this seemed like the best place to ask. I know that we're not allowed to have templates for an individual's signature, but what about templates that can be used in many peoples' signatures? Such as a template that will turn the text in your links a certain color (without having to retype the for each link), a template to create the User Page/Talk Page links for you with specified text, or a template to create t-c-e links. Would these templates be allowed? They could actually put an end to multi-line signatures....but that might just be a dream. *sighs* timeroot 23:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC) :Don't people already use templates for wiki-specific sigs? Or is the standard example which I see on various people's talk pages actually parser syntax rather than a true template? OrbFu 23:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC) ::Yes, that's parser syntax...but that's not what I'm talking about. Think for example of templates with code like }, or code like Talk • • THese templates would make the code for a person signature a lot shorter. Timeroot Talk • • 00:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC) :::Interesting idea. I can't see any problems with it, with regard to our signature guidelines, as long as we're fairly strict about what templates we create for this. On the other hand, this might mess-up cross-wiki signatures, and I think it's actually a good idea for the total amount of code used in a signature to be forced to be at most 255 characters. Quartic ~ insanity is a virtue | Talk 05:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC) ::::I don't see any way it would mess up cross-wiki signatures... And besides, unlike SUBST:, it's not really making things longer, because it wouldn't be substituted. Timeroot Talk • • 00:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC) :::::Basically, if a user uses these templates in their signature then the signature will display incorrectly on a wiki that doesn't use these templates, unless they code a signature that detects which wiki it's used on. But in this case these templates aren't really saving any coding. As for my comment about 255 characters, I'm thinking that the 255 character limit in raw signatures is a useful limit to the complexity of the signature. If these templates save raw signature space this would (potentially) allow for excessively complex signatures. Quartic ~ insanity is a virtue | Talk 19:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC) ::::::It wouldn't be making longer signatures, and it would still help people with multi-wiki signatures. Let me just make a few, and show them, ok? Timeroot Talk • • 05:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC) :::::::Make them as subpages of your user page, then we can move them if we decide to keep them. Quartic ~ insanity is a virtue | Talk 08:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC) ::::::::Okay, sure. I'll post here when they're done. Timeroot Talk • • 01:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC) :::::::::I think I got a pretty useful bunch of "parser magic" bundled up here at User:Timeroot/Sig. It documents the parameters there, and you can see some examples at one of my sandboxes. While you're there, check out my falselink classess.... ;-] Anyway, I think just about any signature on this wiki can be made from that little template. For example, mine is . Well, not exactly, but close. Quartic's is Which, by my count, is 88 characters shorter than your current one (if we move User:Timeroot/Sig to Template:Sig). Bigd56's siggy would be . Compare that to [[User:Bigd56|'Bigd56']] | Talk. I think this template could save a lot of characters, personally. Timeroot Talk • • 03:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC) :But this does mess up cross-wiki signatures. If I copy into my raw signature in and then try to sign on a different wiki I will not get my signature as the output. I could use some code such as |FunOrb Wiki|Quartic ~ insanity is a virtue|Talk| }} to get around this problem, but this uses way more characters than I currently use. These templates give no benefit to a user like me, who uses the exact same signature on every wiki they edit. They would save a small amount of talk page space for a user who doesn't edit more than one wiki, but I really see the gains as insignificant. Quartic ~ insanity is a virtue | Talk 16:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC) ::It wouldn't just save space for users who edit only one wiki - for any users who have different signatures on different wikis (like Bigd56, as an example), it could save quite a bit of space. And if we start using it here, it might become more widely used on other wikis, as well. Start the movement, eh? Timeroot Talk • • 23:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC) :::Sorry, I just don't think it's a good idea. And in Bigd56's case it will only save space if he only edits 2 wikis - RuneScape and FunOrb. On a third wiki neither signature would work right, so he'd have to code a third alternative. Quartic ~ insanity is a virtue | Talk 23:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC) ::::Sorry to keep arguing, but the point is this: While the raw signature may be longer due to the Multi-Wiki aspect, once it get's SUBST:'ed, it will end up much shorter on the Talk Page. That way, when editing a talk page, a signature doesn't take up 1 and a half lines. You see? In the end, it does save space. Timeroot Talk • • 16:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC) :Isn't the main reason that signature templates are banned because a change will mean lots of stuff getting dumped on the job queue? Are you planning to fully protect the templates and/or force people to them every time? OrbFu 18:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC) ::If it was 'ed, it would defeat the whole purpose. I had been planning to fully protect the template, once it was on ~100 pages. (Just to see if it was accepted.) Any changes would create an enormous spike (being used on probably every talk page, eventually), so I think it actually imperative that it would be fully protected. Timeroot Talk • • 01:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)